But what if everything you've been taught by "Academic historians" is a lie, and there is plenty of evidence to support it?

See, this is your issue. You keep saying, "Dude, if you're claiming that historians routinely fabricate or misrepresent information to make their point, you have to back it up a little bit better," only it has been backed up. Again, Hancock, Carlson, and many others have spent their whole life researching this phenomena and writing books about it. You are proof exactly of what I was saying. It does not matter how much evidence they collect, how many books they write that presents evidence, how many lectures they give where they present evidence, there is always going to be the guy like you who has never read any of it, heard any of it, who just keeps saying, "You're going to have to make a better argument than all the information I've completely ignored!"

Again, it doesn't matter what evidence these guys have, you won't believe it because you're invested in defending your worldview, you're not invested in learning something about the world. Everything you read, watch, listen to, it reinforces what you want to believe, and if it does not, regardless of what evidence supports it, it's crazy talk from "conspiracy theorists." As long as you can tell yourself they are crazy and you are sane, that's all that matters.